We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine



Forgotten password?


Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 17 (2015), OMD/PDA     15. Jan. 2016
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 17 (2015), OMD/PDA  (15.01.2016)

Supplement, Poster 971, Language: English

Gingival Architecture and Smile Aspect - Perspectives by Students and Patients
Dória, Rita Melo / Manso, M. C. / Martins, M. / Gavinha , S. / Manarte-Monteiro, P.
Introduction: The harmonious combination of color, texture, shape and gingival architecture is of utmost importance in the aesthetic perception of smile.
Objectives: Qualitative evaluation/comparison of patients and Dentistry students' perceptions regarding the gingival architecture and aesthetic appearance of the smile.
Materials and Methods: An observational, cross-sectional study approved by Ethics Committee of UFP. Two photographs were taken (intra/extra-oral) to 35 patients (74.3%-women) of Pedagogical Dentistry Clinic-UFP, which subsequently completed a survey (Personalized Esthetic Evaluation) on their gingival/smile appearance. Thirty-eight students of FCS-UFP registered gingival criteria (Esthetic Checklist; Fradeani, 2004) after observing those photographs. Descriptive statistical analysis/comparison with chi-square test (α=0.05).
Results: Patient' self-assessment: 94.3% likes their gingival color, 74.3% regular gingival margins, 77.1% has no gingival exposition, healthy gums 74.3%, 88.6% satisfied with gingival appearance, but 48.6% would improve their gums. Checklist of gingival parameters by Students: symmetric margin (60.3%), regular zenith (53.5%), papillae present (80%), alterations (gingival inflammation/recession) (61.9%), ordinary normal tonality (48.6%) and gingival aesthetic line (51.4%). Agreement relationship between patients and students perceptions, in all evaluated criteria (p<0.05). More studies should be conducted to compare qualitative/quantitative aspects of the gingival architecture.
Conclusions: The comparison of patients and students' perceptions proved to be compliant in all assessed parameters of gingival/smile aspects, occurring variation on the degree of agreement (low to high) in some parameters.
Clinical Implications: The analysis of the patient/professional perceptions, on gingival architecture/smile aspects, enables communication synergism on esthetic/cosmetic rehabilitators' decisions.

Keywords: Gingival aesthetic, gingival contour, gingival architecture, smile aesthetic, macro-aesthetic, micro-aesthetic

24th Annual Meeting of the Portuguese Dental Association
10.-12. November 2015
Meo Arena, Lisboa, Portugal